All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Navigation

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to
use the classic discussion system instead. If you login, you can remember this preference.

So you're saying pollution doesn't cross borders? If I dump toxic waste in the Rio Grande, it will know to stop at the Mexican border? If we release smoke into the atmosphere, it will know not to go over the ocean?

Pollution is not a local problem, and shouldn't be treated like one. I know this won't change your mind because "you're cool like that", but your argument is becoming nonsensical.

No, it isn't. Rather, you don't understand it, so it seems nonsensical.

Of course pollution can be a problem that crosses borders. So too with many things, such as the economy. If the U.S. has to have certain pollution standards for Mexico's sake, does Mexico have to have a certain economic standard of living for the U.S.' sake?

What does that mean? The U.S. should follow some international agreement to do something it doesn't want to do? If so, then how could that treaty or law ever be ratified, if it is not something we want to do? And if we want to do it, why do we need an international agreement?

Agreements, be it between people or nations, are all about not doing what one wants to do. Compromises. Living together. My freedom ends where my neighbour's begins. (And this is how the construction of the European Union happened.) T

This selfish, arrogant, egoist, asocial statement "We're the US, we do only what we want to do" is precisely the root cause of the raising anti-US hate everywhere in the world since the Republicans took over this country.

That's ridiculous. Every country always does only what it wants to do, unless it is forced to do otherwise, or gets something in return. The U.S. is no different.

Not remotely. In fact, it's true of all organizations and all people, including yourself. You never do what you don't want to do.

If you could offer a counterexample, please feel free.

Perhaps you're thinking of charity. But that's a poor example, since the U.S. is the most charitable nation on Earth. And it's a poor example also because people only give charity if they WANT to give charity.

Just because something is the best course of action, doesn't mean you actually want to do it.

I don't mean "want" in some emotional sense, relating to "desire" or somesuch. Realize the context: we are relating to the acts of a national government. I am using it in the utilitarian sense, where is it nearly synonymous with "will."

So if you do it, then yes, it does mean you want to do it, you have a will to do it. If I intentionally killed someone, it would be because I wanted to.

> Finally you can't blame the voters - Washington> and particularly Bush and the Republicans have> such strong links with the oil industry and other> major pollutors that even if the american people> asked for green laws they would never get them.

Blame the voters. They voted for Bush(well 52% of60% of them or whatever it was) and they deservethe blame for whatever he does.

If I can't understand your argument it is either because you aren't explaining it well or it is nonsense.

No, there are other options, including your lack of ability to understand. I wasn't blaming him for not understanding it. It's a truism that miscommunication could be the fault of the sender, the receiver, or a combination of both. However, I would hasten to add that what I was describing was not new or innovative, is a very common and pervasive view, and that if one don't understand it -- which was

While the United States is cutting its own emissions, some nations, especially China, are belching out more and more dirty air. As a result, overseas pollution could partly cancel out improvements in U.S. air quality that have cost billions of dollars.

So, is pollution that originates in other countries a problem that the U.S. would deal with?

Well, there's two primary parts, meant to address two different problems.

The first, which most people say won't fix SS, is the personal accounts. What is true is that it won't fix SS *solvency* problems, which is a straw man, as it is not meant to (well, in truth, it could help prevent future solvency problems, as it will reduce the long-term liabilities at the same time it is reducing the revenues, making it easier to manage, but that's not really the point of it). It's meant to help fix the problem of

The lack of plan to pay for the transition costs is one of my big reasons for, right now, disliking personal accounts. The other is that I am not convinced I will have substantial control over the money in those personal accounts. What is "ownership" without control?